Justice Scalia Offers Some Comments on Gun Control While Hawking his new Book

37 comments:

I have to admit it is amusing watching him talk about this topic since the Heller-McDonald decisions make this pure gibberish.

The Second Amendment was implemented by the Militia Acts of 1792 and covered the arms of infantry, artillery, and cavalry. I think that an artillery piece is too large to be hand carried.

I should also add that there was no federal gun control act dating from the period of the founding.

The problem is that to come up with his explanation for the Second Amendment.

To justify the Collectivist interpretation (applies to militias only), one needs only go as far as the preamble where it says "provide for the common defence".

Further in, one finds the militia mentioned and the power of congress to arm the militia under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

As Patrick Henry pointed out in regard to this clause:

Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States--reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither--this power being exclusively given to Congress.

Thus, congress is not to infringe upon the arming of the milita organised by Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

That is the simplest explanation of the Second Amendment to use the Ockham's Razor comment often used to object to the collectivist interpretation by the gun rights crowd.

Greg Camp confuses the to bear clause with 'bear claws', the pastry, LOL.

He routinely engages in fluffy thinking, that lacks substantive content LOL. And of course, he consistently fails at critical thinking, and does not appear to have improved in that criteria, or in his grasp on facts

Laci, you do love to tell us that no clause can be without effect. At the same time, no clause should be read as more than it is. The well-regulated clause identifies a specific motivation, but the keep and bear clause names the right as belonging to the people. Not to the militia only, and not to the state.

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.orlin sellers

Greg: WTF The well-regulated clause identifies a specific motivation, but the keep and bear clause names the right as belonging to the people. Not to the militia only, and not to the state.

Wouldn't the specific motivation for "well-regulated" be that any military force be under civilian control?

The problem, Greg, is that you spout gibberish keep and bear relates to the well-regulated militia. As Blackstone points out "If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point."

Anonymous, then goes on to add to the ignorance by demonstrating that some people when dealing with this issue confuse national self-defence with personal self-defence.

The Constitution makes it quite plain that it's objective is to address NATIONAL defence issues, not ones of a personal nature.

To try to say that this document addresses personal self-defence means that one has to go beyond the four corners of the document

Anonymous only demonstrates that he parrots, but does not understand this topic.

BTW, Greg, by requesting that the Second Amendment address personal defence, YOU ARE the one saying the clause should have more effect than it deserves.

Show me the explicit language dealing with personal uses in the actual text. you cannot imply this from a phrase "To keep and bear arms"

Here are some examples for you to try and get your head around, Greg:

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792)Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777).

You claim to teach English, so this should not be too difficult for you to do, or understand.

But, I know you will continue to show us what an ignorant ass you are, Greg.

So, unless you can provide an EXPLICIT reference to personal use in the Second Amendment like the examples above, I will not bother with responding ,Greg, since you can guess what my response would be.

Laci, as you point out, many state constitutions include personal defense in their expression of a right to arms. The Federal Constitution does say that the right belongs to the people. Now what on earth might "the people" mean? Is "the people" in the Second Amendment different from "the people" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments? The Tenth specifically distinguishes "the people" from "the States." The Fifth Amendment refers to "person," and presumably, "people" is the plural of that.

So do explain how "the people" in one is different from "the people" in the others.

This is a different discipline? Do you understand what that means, or does that go beyond your remedial reading skills?

You have to stick with the EXACT words as written.

The "right of the people" to "keep and bear arms" relates to "the militia" and "well regulated" ones at that, which means the relates to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, which happens to say that Congress has the power to ARM the militia.

The US constitution doesn't give a fuck about guns for private purposes and you can't point to anywhere in the constitution which EXPLICITLY says it does.

On the other hand, the Constitution DOES mention the militia.

So, to get to your question, the reason that PEOPLE in the Second Amendment refers to Militias is because The "right of the people" to "keep and bear arms" relates to "the militia" and "well regulated" ones at that, which means the relates to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, which happens to say that Congress has the power to ARM the militia.

Try to use what little brainpower you have, Greg, to understand that.

The Second Amendment doesn't say Fuckwit Greg Camp has the right to own a gun, it says you have the right to participate in a militia organised under Article I, Section, 8, Clause 16.

I wholeheartedly support your right to do that because I have the right to get in your face and keep drilling it into your head that you are a fuckwit since I would outrank you.

Laci, you failed to answer my question. "The people" isn't a confusing term. It means the citizens of the United States. The phrase means that in every other amendment that I listed--and you ignored--and a logical person would conclude that it means the same thing in the Second Amendment.

But let's take a grammatically equivalent sentence: Vitamin C being necessary to a healthy life, the right of the people to keep and eat lemons shall not be infringed.

If that were in the Constitution, would you then tell me that I have no right to use lemons in a martini or a pie? Again, the well-regulated clause may explain why the Framers felt the need to include the amendment, but it doesn't limit the right expressed in the keep and bear clause.

If the right were to be limited to the state militias, why doesn't the amendment name them as holding the right? Why be unclear and name "the people" as having it? But really, the better question is why do you and other statists insist on torturing the plain language of the Constitution to mean something more amenable to control?

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments protect "the people" from unlimited state power in criminal proceedings. They require the government to have good cause before entering a citizen's home or going to trial, and they restrain the government from demanding that a person provide evidence against himself. But how about "the people" in the First and Tenth Amendments? Are those only referring to criminals?

Regarding what you call a term of art, you said that "the people" refers to a group of people having a connection to the nation when used in the Constitution. It's best for a definition not to use the word in question to define the word in question, but the easiest way to put what you wrote is one word: citizens.

But what we see here is that as always, you're incapable of having a polite conversation with anyone who disagrees with you. Rather than addressing points raised, you curse and yell and insult. Do you do the same to juries? How about judges who rule against your motions?

As I said, Greg, you can't say something without showing us you are a fuckwit.

The term "People" is reflexive that is it relates to the topic mentioned.

So, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment refers to the Militia--thus the Second Amendment is seen as a "whole"

The rights if the people in the respective amendments refer back to the classes that are addressed in each amendment.

No, citizen does not apply to people since people who are here as foreign nationals are also entitled to these rights.

The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

Since the Second Amendment addresses the "right to keep and bear arms" that right is not addressed by the Tenth Amendment.

Furthermore, as understood at the time of the founding, the doctrine of self-defence stated that lethal force was a last resort only to be used after all other options had failed and if there was no other reasonable option.

Greg, it's not that you disagree with me, but that you are so obviously ignorant of the topic.

Yet, you still try to argue with someone who knows more about that subject than you do.

So, I don't feel any need to be "polite" to you since you are too clueless to "get" anything I say.

Instead, you continue to pontificate in your ignorant way which only highlights the fact that you are ignorant.

I could go on and on about how little you know about this topic, yet you will still blather on in your particularly ignorant fashion ignaorant of your ignorance, Greg.

So, the easiest way to tell you what you are is to call you a fuckwit.

Yet, you are still too ignorant to understand what precisely that means.

Pooch says. "BTW, Orrin Shithead, where does the term "palladium of liberty" come from and what does it refer to?

And it refers to "Common Defence", not personal."

Next thing you'll tell me is that the Bill of Rights isn't meant to defend INDIVIDUAL Rights.

But, if you wish to argue with St. George Tucker and his reasoning that ". . The right of self defence is the first law of nature", thus the palladium of liberty.Go right ahead and continue exposing yourself as an empty headed sciolist.your friendorlin sellers

Hmm. It seems I am a little late to the party. But I do, indeed, seem to be lacking some edumocation.

So I was wondering, Sir Laci the Dog Sir, if the second amendment was indeed only intended to apply to militia's; if you might take a moment explain to me why our founding fathers are quoted as saying some such of the following:

The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their *OWN* arms. -Samuel Adams - U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 [*emphasis mine*]

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. -Thomas Jefferson

Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or *PRIVATE SELF-DEFENSE*. -John Adams [*emphasis mine*]

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -James Madison

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. -Thomas Jefferson

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. -Patrick Henry

... cause I might just be dim-witted, but it sure seems to me like all of these men seemed to think that the constitution was protecting private ownership of firearms.

You are a little late to the party. We've been answering nonsense like that for years. Look at the archives before you start quoting the slave-owning, misogynists to us by cherry picking selected texts out of context.

That is what I figured … diversionary ... just like the discussions in the other posts.

This particular comment thread was about the intent and application of the second amendment. Specifically whether it was intended for private ownership of firearms and self defense or only for support of the militia. So I listed quite a few quotes from the founding fathers that unquestionably show that the intent was indeed to ensure private ownership of firearms and what do I get as a response … the founder fathers were sexist and racist. Diversionary!

Now we can certainly talk all day about the belief systems of the founding fathers and where they stood in relation to the times in which they lived. They can even argue that because they were sexist and racist that the whole bill or rights should be rewritten. All of that would be valid for discussion.

But none of that obscures or changes the FACT that the founding fathers intended the second amendment to cover personal ownership of firearms … because they came right out and said it … and that was the topic of this comment thread.

Oh, is it really so sad? What's so sad is your attempt at condescension as a pud-down tool. Is that the way you argue straight up?

The argument that the founders intended individual rights when the wrote the 2A may or may not have merit. But, everything about the issue is anachronistic. Unlike the 1A, which speaks of eternal non-changing ideas like freedom of speech and religion, the 2A talks about guns and gun ownership, something that has changed too much over the last 2+ centuries to have any meaning at all today.

Well like I said, we can argue about those things all day long. But that wasn't the topic of this thread ... was it?

The primary topic of the thread had been the intended meaning of the 2A. And so when I attempted to bring facts relevant to that discussion, you called it "nonsense" and starting categorizing the belief system of the founder's themselves.

That is clearly a diversion and that is what I referred to as being sad ... because it is.

"Don't make me laugh. My stomach still hurts from your other comment."

So, I am human a may sometimes fail to resist all temptation to lash out in postings ... especially ones where we go three full rounds talking about the same numbers and getting nowhere (http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-many-dgus-are-really-legit.html).

But all and all I think I have maintained a higher level of decorum than the welcome I was given.

Mikeb, are you suggesting that communication hasn't changed in important ways since the writing of the Constitution? The fact that you live in Italy and I in Arkansas, but we can exchange words instantly suggests otherwise. In addition, why exactly do you see speech and religion as eternal rights, but self-defense and property as things that change?